Explains the SB 6-5 amendments
(Exhibit 1) which put all school districts, including Portland, into the
bill.

026

Sen. Starr

Asks John Marshall to speak on the
SB 6-6 amendments (Exhibit 2), which he had drafted working with the School
Boards Association.

031

John Marshall

Explains SB 6-6 amendments which
would allow districts to take advantage of marketplace competition as long as
it doesn’t exceed the premiums charged to PEBB employees and would allow
districts to purchase their insurance from PEBB. States that this would allow
time to see what kind of premiums the marketplace is able to produce.

056

Sen. Starr

MOTION: MOVES SB 6-6 AMENDMENTS
DATED 6/10/03 BE ADOPTED.

062

Sen. Ferrioli

States that the -6 amendments do
bring Portland in which is important. Shares Sen. Starr’s questions about the
effectiveness of a pool, but states that he will send the bill to Ways and
Means.

070

Sen. Deckert

Clarifies that it is the -5
amendments that bring Portland into the bill.

Discussion follows.

075

Sen. Ringo

States that the debate is between
the -6 and the -5 amendments and that the -6 amendments are meant to
substitute the intent of the bill. Urges a no vote on the -6 amendments
because he wants to go forward with the statewide pool.

083

Sen. Starr

Responds that the debate is not
about whether there is a state pool but rather what is going to save money
and that there is no evidence for potential cost savings with a pool. States
that they have not been given enough information to decide whether pooling
will save money.

108

Sen. Ringo

States that the analysis was given
that SB 6 would save $42 million and that OSBA disagreed and said that it
would only save $23 million. Asserts that both figures are large and that the
motivation behind the amendments drafted by OSBA is the $2 million royalty
they currently receive.

122

Sen. Deckert

ORDER: ROLL CALL VOTE: MOTION FAILS:
2-4-0.

SENATORS ANSWERING AYE: STARR,
FERRIOLI.

SENATORS ANSWERING NO: CORCORAN,
HANNON, RINGO, DECKERT.

127

Sen. Ringo

MOTION: MOVES SB 6-5 AMENDMENTS
DATED 6/5/03 BE ADOPTED.

129

Sen. Deckert

ORDER: ROLL CALL VOTE: MOTION
PASSES: 4-2-0.

SENATORS ANSWERING AYE: CORCORAN,
RINGO, FERRIOLI, DECKERT.

SENATORS ANSWERING NO: HANNON,
STARR.

132

Sen. Ringo

MOTION: MOVES SB 6 TO THE SENATE
FLOOR WITH A DO PASS AS AMENDED RECOMMENDATION AND THE BILL BE REFERRED TO
THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BY PRIOR REFERENCE.

135

Sen. Hannon

States that he is going to vote no
because it would take away any remaining local control.

147

Sen. Ferrioli

States that adding Portland to the
pool is necessary but expresses concerns about far overstated potential
savings. Declares that he will be giving a courtesy vote for the Chairman.

173

Sen. Corcoran

States that he believes there will
be an economy of scale, using PEBB as an example.

190

Sen. Deckert

States that he does not know whether
the bill will get out of Ways and Means and that there is a companion bill in
the house that is going to Ways and Means as well. Discusses group that has
worked on this issue for the past four months. Encourages people with other
amendments to take them to Ways and Means.

200

Sen. Starr

Responds that policy choices are
supposed to be made in Revenue and not Ways and Means and that they have
spent far too little time spent on the bill in committee. Expresses concern
over many aspects of the bill.

232

Sen. Deckert

ORDER: ROLL CALL VOTE: MOTION
PASSES: 4-2-0.

SENATORS ANSWERING AYE: CORCORAN,
RINGO, FERRIOLI, DECKERT.

SENATORS ANSWERING NO: HANNON,
STARR.

OPENS WORK SESSION ON HB
2379

242

Sen. Carter

Discusses the reasoning behind the
HB 2379 and its intent of providing low income housing in N/NE Portland and
states that she would like for it to be passed out with no amendments.

280

Sen. Ringo

Asks about the -B9 amendments.

284

David Nebel

Explains that the –B9 amendments are
included in what Sen. Carter described as the original bill and that they are
technical amendments to what they passed out originally to resolve conflicts
that caused the bill to be brought back to committee.

301

Mazen Malik

States that the bill cannot pass
without conflict amendments.

315

Sen. Deckert

Explains that they already passed
the bill out but brought it back because of conflicts, which are resolved in
the –B9 amendments.

324

Sen. Carter

Requests that the –B10 amendments
not be adopted.

328

Dave Hunnicutt

Explains the –B10 amendments
(Exhibit 4) which would solve a 30 year battle with Dorothy English and the
state over the sale of property. States that she has been treated unfairly
and that this is the only way to solve the problem.

401

Sen. Ringo

States that there is a legitimate
question as to if Dorothy English was treated unfairly, notes that there is a
bill in the Rules committee that deals with the same issue, and questions
whether the Governor would veto the bill because it is super siding a
land-use dispute. Asks whether Honeycutt has asked the Governor that
question.

426

Hunnicutt

Responds that they have communicated
with the Governor’s office on several occasions and have not received a
response.

TAPE 142, SIDE A

010

Sen. Ringo

Expresses sympathy for English’s
situation, but states that it should not be added to a bill to promote
affordable housing.

015

Hunnicutt

Points out that the Governor just
doesn’t want to get involved in an ongoing process such as with the North
Plains case and that this situation is not in process.

028

Sen. Hannon

Asks if the North Plains case is
still in court.

029

Hunnicutt

Responds affirmatively.

030

Sen. Hannon

Asks if this case is in court.

031

Hunnicutt

Responds that they can’t even get to
court because the county’s policies cannot rezone.

033

Sen. Hannon

Points out that when this bill was
up before, the legislature asked Honeycutt and the city of Portland to
negotiate a reasonable compromise and bring it back

038

Hunnicutt

Responds that these amendments have
not been in the committee before and that negotiations have been
unsuccessful. Discusses House Bill that addresses same issue that is in the
Senate Rules committee.

052

Sen. Deckert

States that he doesn’t want to attach
the amendment to HB 2379 for fear of jeopardizing it, but that he believes
there is a deal to be had.

060

Sen. Ferrioli

States that there is no reason to
amend the bill if the bill in Rules is moving forward.

061

Sen. Deckert

Responds that the concern is that it
is not moving forward.

062

Sen. Hannon

Discusses other bill regarding land
use policy that is locked up and questions why he should believe that Sen.
Deckert will work for the bill when it was locked up.

073

Sen. Deckert

Responds that it is his belief that
there is room for compromise.

075

Sen. Ringo

Responds that it is not that simple
because people believe that once you make exceptions to the land use policy
that it will never end.

082

Sen. Ferrioli

MOTION: MOVES HB 2379–B10 AMENDMENTS
DATED 6/9/03 BE ADOPTED.

087

Sen. Ferrioli

States that if they could be assured
that the bill in the Rules committee would move they wouldn’t need to adopt
the amendment.

091

Sen. Deckert

States that he would prefer to hold
the bill over.

092

Sen. Ferrioli

MOTION: WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION (Refer
to meter 082).

095

Sen. Corcoran

States that there is no way the bill
is going to pass out of Rules because there is no compromise and suggests
moving HB 2379 today.

098

Sen. Deckert

Asserts that he wants to hold the
bill.

CLOSES WORK SESSION ON HB
2379

OPENS WORK SESSION ON HB
2671

106

Malik

Explains HB 2671, which adds new
criterion that allows a business to claim long-term non-urban enterprise zone
property tax incentives. Refer to staff measure summary (Exhibit 5) Discusses
the revenue impact (Exhibit 6). Discusses the –A3 amendments (Exhibit 6),
which takes away the property tax requirements and allows for an in lieu of
agreement to allow for an agreement with centrally assessed utilities.

158

Sen. Ferrioli

States that the bill has the right
relating clause for the implementation of an agreement that was struck
between one of the counties and a couple of energy companies relative to the
payment of an in lieu of taxes. States that the sponsors of the bill are
supportive of the amendment.

191

Sen. Ferrioli

Discusses the issue in HB 2299 that
intersected with the agreement reached by the county and AVISTA.

206

Ray Grace

States that they have worked out an
agreement with AVISTA and that the amendment takes care of everything they
need to put it into place.

218

Greg Sweek

Testifies in support of the –A3
amendments because it will allow the agreement to be implemented.

223

Jim Anderson

Discusses the agreement made between
the county and AVISTA and offers support for the –A3 amendments.

231

Sen. Ferrioli

Testifies that both the county and
AVISTA made compromises and that they have a future for a great relationship.

242

Sen. Hannon

Asks if the construction in progress
is dealt with in the agreement.

245

Sweek

Responds that the construction in
progress was in HB 2299 and that the agreement will only work if this
amendment and an amendment for HB 2299 are passed.

Discussion follows.

268

Sen. Ferrioli

Clarifies the difference between HB
2671 and HB 2299 as it relates to AVISTA.

291

Sen. Deckert

States that the only reason this
amendment is here for HB 2671 is because it had the right relating clause.

Discussion follows.

303

Sen. Ferrioli

MOTION: MOVES HB 2671-A3 AMENDMENTS
DATED 6/9/03 BE ADOPTED.

306

Sen. Deckert

ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, MOTION
PASSES: 5-0-1.

SENATOR EXCUSED: RINGO.

310

Sen. Ferrioli

MOTION: MOVES HB 2671 TO THE SENATE
FLOOR WITH A DO PASS AS AMENDED RECOMMENDATION.

315

Sen. Deckert

ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, MOTION
PASSES: 5-0-1.

SENATOR EXCUSED: RINGO.

OPENS WORK SESSION ON HB
2299

329

Sen. Deckert

Asks Mike Burton to come up and
discuss amendments.

332

Mike Burton

States that none of the amendments
are from him and that some of the amendments cover the same things and are
from the same sponsors.

346

Sen. Deckert

Asks if Burton participated in the
drafting of the –B18 amendments.

350

Burton

Responds affirmatively and explains
the –B18 amendments which point out that there is a fourth and fifth year
exemption if businesses and counties follow an agreement that could, but does
not have to, contain the stipulation of prevailing wages.

395

Sen. Deckert

Asks if Burton has been involved in
the –B19, -B20, and –B21 amendments.

394

Malik

States that the –B20 amendments are
conflict amendments that have to be adopted in order for the bill to pass
out.

401

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks about the –B21 amendments.

TAPE 141, SIDE B

001

Sen. Starr

Explains the –B21 amendments which would
allow cities with populations over 60,000 to work with OECDD on the Strategic
Investment Program.

008

Sen. Hannon

Asks how many cities the amendment
would apply to.

009

Sen. Starr

Responds seven.

010

Sen. Deckert

Asks who sponsored the –B21
amendments.

011

Sen. Starr

Responds that he had it drafted.

014

Burton

Explains the –B19 amendments which
would remove specific conditions related to the AVISTA project that were in
HB 2299 and that it leaves the construction-in-progress exemption in the
bill.

020

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks if it would remove section 34 b
and c.

021

Burton

Responds that it would remove 34 d
and e and that 34 b and c remain in the bill.

025

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks who sponsored the –B19
amendments.

026

Sen. Starr

Responds that AVISTA brought the
–B19 amendments.

027

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks how this affects the agreement
between AVISTA and Morrow County.

028

Burton

Responds that without the
construction-in-progress exemption in the bill the company has to pay the
entire tax for the year in question. States that he believes that this
amendment is necessary for the deal to go forward.

Discussion follows.

043

Bob Shiprack

Discusses the –B18 amendment which is
a compromise for the prevailing wage requirement and makes it permissive to
reach an agreement in the fifth and sixth years of the enterprise zone
exemption that includes providing prevailing wages.

068

Sen. Deckert

Asks how Shiprack feels about using
a sixth and seventh year exemption.

072

Shiprack

Responds that he has never discussed
that and doesn’t know how the local governments would respond because it is
such a large tax abatement.

078

Burton

Responds that sixth and seventh
years are negotiable.

085

Sen. Deckert

Asks if local governments can
already enter into a prevailing wage agreement.

087

Burton

Responds affirmatively.

088

Sen. Deckert

Asks if Shiprack wants it in
statute.

089

Shiprack

Responds affirmatively and states
that it will be a tool for local governments to see in statute that this is
an option they can pursue.

Discussion follows.

113

Shawn Miller

Testifies in opposition to the –B18
amendments because it would tell people that they have to negotiate a
prevailing wage which would take away the incentive. Asserts that the
requirement of establishing and implementing procedures to verify compliance
would have to be done by the counties and would be an unfunded mandate.

170

Sen. Corcoran

States that he doesn’t see how it
can be an unfunded mandate if it is negotiable.

175

Miller

Responds that is just referring to
the portion on compliance and believes that it is mandated in that section.

Discussion follows.

201

Sen. Deckert

States that he believes this is just
putting down on paper what is currently law.

203

Jessica Harris

Testifies in opposition to HB
2299-B18 amendments. States that this amendment doesn’t do anything to produce
more local jobs.

239

Sen. Corcoran

Asks if prevailing wage jobs are not
good for Oregon.

240

Harris

Responds that they are good for
Oregon but that this doesn’t assure that Oregonians are going to get these
jobs.

Discussion follows.

257

Sen. Deckert

Asks how this bill hurts anything.

258

Miller

Responds that this will deter
businesses from locating in Oregon.

Discussion follows.

274

Anderson

Discusses the –B19 amendments, which
takes out sections 34 d and e that were put into the bill initially by AVISTA
on the house side. Discusses section 34 c which would allow centrally
assessed companies to negotiate with local taxing districts and allows local
taxing districts to opt-out. Testifies that it is important for the future of
the state to provide the incentive.

313

Sen. Ferrioli

States that he has sympathy for
taking centrally assessed utilities off the tax roll for works in progress,
but that there are jurisdictions that are negatively affected by 34 c.

338

Anderson

Responds that he isn’t surprised
that the counties have a problem with it that utilities are different today because
they are selling commodities just like anything else.

386

Burton

Clarifies that this only applies to
centrally assessed utilities in enterprise zones and is not a blanket
exemption.

392

Sen. Deckert

Asks if the Department favors that
approach.

399

Burton

Responds that this has been a controversial
issue but that the environment is changing and at some point there needs to
be a policy decision to address that.

405

Sen. Deckert

Asks if Burton can see the incentive
qualities of the amendment.

410

Burton

Responds that the energy market has
changed and to exempt utilities from property taxes while in construction
might create a proliferation of wind generating facilities.

TAPE 142, SIDE B

007

Michelle Deister

Expresses concern for providing an
exemption for centrally assessed utilities work in progress because it is a
major shift in tax policy. Recommends that they look at the issue by itself
and remove section 34 with the –B12 amendment.

034

Sen. Ferrioli

States that the –B12 and –B19 would
be accommodations to both AVISTA and local governments and believes they
should look further into the construction-in-progress policy.

054

Gil Riddell

Expresses concern that this is a
major tax policy question and should be studied before any law is changed.
Points out that there is an opt-out provision for special districts, but not
cities and counties.

075

Sen. Deckert

Asks if they want the –B12, but not
the –B19.

077

Deister

Responds that the –B12 and –B19
would remove any possible conversation about construction-in-progress.

Discussion follows.

099

Sen. Ferrioli

States that the policy issue is
whether to exempt centrally assessed utilities from works-in-progress and
that it has the counties split and should be studied further.

108

Sen. Deckert

Agrees with Sen. Ferrioli and
suggests using another vehicle for the policy in the future.

114

Sen. Starr

Explains the –B21 which allows the
seven largest cities in the state to enter into negotiations with OECDD as it
relates to the Strategic Investment Program if it was inside the city limits.

135

Dennis Mulvihill

States that he believes the
association of counties would oppose the –B21 amendments because they would
allow the cities to take the lead and make the decision even though it would
impact the whole county.

Discussion follows.

160

Sen. Deckert

States that they will hold the bill
until Thursday and asks for no more amendments.

167

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks to hear what –B22 amendments
are.

169

Richard Kosesan

Discusses the-B22 amendments which
would provide an incentive for the development of wind energy specifically in
Morrow County.

203

John Powell

Testifies that this would allow two
counties that are contiguous of one another to share as enterprise zone
because wind energy operations need to be spread out.

215

Sen. Ferrioli

Asks if they are looking
specifically at Morrow and Sherman Counties.

217

Kosesan

Responds that they are mainly
looking at Morrow County.

225

Mike McArthur

Testifies that the –B22 amendments
don’t seem necessary because counties are currently able to negotiate with
one another.

Discussion follows.

279

Grace

States that he is not prepared to
speak on the –B22 amendments.

291

Laura Pryor

Testifies that renewable energy is
important, but doesn’t understand why the amendment is necessary. Recommends
taking a longer look at it.

318

Sen. Deckert

States that HB 2299 will be
scheduled for Thursday and requests no more amendments.